# Jackson v. Commissioner > United States Board of Tax Appeals · April 23, 1935 · 32 B.T.A. 470 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4495648 ## Case - **Full name:** THEODORE C. JACKSON AND W. R. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES B. MAXWELL, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE - **Court:** United States Board of Tax Appeals - **Decided:** April 23, 1935 - **Citations:** 32 B.T.A. 470; 1935 BTA LEXIS 944 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Murdock - **Judges:** Leech, Smith, Agree, McMahon, Murdock - **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4495648 ## Opinion text Murdock, concurring: I concur in the results reached in this case and in the closely related cases of Dollie M. Stine and M. Josephine Stine, 32 B. T. A. 482. If the cases were considered together, as I think they should be, instead of separately, the correctness of the results would be even more apparent. Leech: I agree with the foregoing comment. However, in my judgment, the result reached in the majority opinion is correct — not for the reason which, among others, that opinion indicates, Maxwell could not have accomplished a completed gift of the stock to the Stine sisters since they were under his personal domination — but is correct only because he did not here intend a gift. This record apparently establishes, at least by implication, that the Stine sisters were merely agents for Maxwell in the sale of the stock upon which the disputed deficiency arises. Thus, the estate of Maxwell, the principal, was the taxable recipient of the proceeds of that sale. Smith and Sea well agree with the above. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4495648. Public record. Not legal advice.